Action research PhDGerry Roberts -- Chapter 1
Action researching my practice as a facilitator of experiential learning with pastoralist farmers in Central West Queensland
Gerard Michael O’Brien Roberts
B.App.Sc. (Rur. Tech) (Hons); M.Sc. (Wool and An. Sc.)
Chapter 1 The arguments, structure and background of my thesis
Section 1.1 Introduction
Reporting the processes and outcomes of action research seems more complex than my experience with other forms of research. This appears to be because the processes and outcomes relate as much to changes in the research practice of the practitioner as to changes in the matter being researched.
In this first chapter of my thesis I present the two basic arguments that emerged from my action research and which relate to the matter being researched and my own practice.
This is not unlike the issue raised by Lomax (1994) and Lomax and Parker (1995) in relation to the assessment of action research graduate theses in the field of education. They refer to the issue as "... at the intra-subjective level where the act of creating a representation challenges our understanding of the practice it represents and at the inter-subjective level where the sharing of meaning in a representation that is made public enables others to challenge that meaning" (Lomax and Parker 1995 p301).
Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1992) make a similar distinction to these two contexts in their writing about action research in graduate management research programs. They distinguish between a thesis action research project and a core action research project.
Their separation of a core and a thesis action research project approach in graduate research programs is supported by Carr (1996).
In a similar way there are two streams in my action research. Stream I, like their thesis action research project, is my action researching my practice as an extension officer introducing experiential learning to pastoralist farmers as a process for helping them better manage their own affairs. In this stream, I conducted my action research in conjunction with my three academic supervisors, my DPI project team and the pastoralists. Stream II is the action researching I did in practice with pastoralist groups working on their thematic concerns of wool marketing and current local issues (CLIs). My Stream II is like the core action research project referred to by Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1992). Whether perceived as streams or projects, both present challenges in terms of reporting style.
In agricultural science practice it is not usual to personalise reports of research, particularly research theses, even where they involve qualitative phenomenalist research about social practices and extension in agriculture. (See for example Gamble et al, 1995; Wissemann, 1993; and Roberts, 1989). An impersonal, objective approach is understandable where researchers seek to observe and report understanding or change from a position external to the system.
Action research demands a greater emphasis on the subjective however because it includes reflection on personal practice to understand and improve it (Dick 1995; Henderson 1995; Bawden 1990; Carr and Kemmis 1986). Others have written about researchers and their research in a way that recognises the linkage between them. Morgan (1983b p405) for instance submits that, "The position I have adopted hinges on the argument that the process of knowing [researching] involves a process of forming and transforming, and that in knowing our world, we also form and transform ourselves." Gray (1989 p283) refers to this as well, arguing that, "Research is a process of self-engagement, for researchers project their own identities and conflicts into their professional work." Similarly, Frost (1989) expresses his interpretation of his activities as "I do know that most of what I have written and published is an authentic representation of what I feel and believe is me ..." Other authors who recognise the inextricable links between a researcher and their research are Wolfe and Kolb (1991). Their reference is to the convergence of career and personal development. Morgan, Gray, Frost and Wolfe and Kolb provide understanding of the personalised reporting of research. I have chosen the same path as I recognise that my personality as well as my personal reflections have contributed to the direction and shaping of my research. I have been both subject and object of my own research.
Section 1.2 The two arguments of my thesis
There are two arguments central to my thesis (Arguments I and II). The first emerges from the learning outcomes that I have derived about experiential learning as a concept, and its practical role in what has been termed a critical learning system (Bawden 1995). Argument I, is that experiential learning provides a process for developing learning outcomes in response to a) the thematic concerns of participants, and b) about the difficulties that arise in group functioning and the facilitator’s role. Among the key learning outcomes that have contributed to this argument are:
- That my initial interpretation of the concept of experiential limited the extent to which the learning expectations of group members were met. Reflecting on this issue resulted in my evolving an increasingly sophisticated interpretation of experiential learning.
- That even with my initially limited interpretation of experiential learning, its use by pastoralists led to them reporting higher level learning outcomes for some situations.
- That there are theories about levels of learning and cognitive development that are useful in informing experiential practice.
- That action research, experiential learning and action learning are different names for similar phenomena depending on the perspective. As well I learnt that action research as connected cycles of experiential learning represents a more sophisticated learning model than the ‘questioning model’ of action learning as it is usually described.
- That on occasions the quality of the relationships within our learning groups influenced the validity of the information exchanged and the level of participation by pastoralists. For that reason relationships warrant attention as an important focus for the process of experiential learning in group situations.
- That as a facilitator I should model experiential learning by going through the same learning processes as the pastoralists and making my learning processes explicit to the group.
Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 led to my proposing a first addition to Bawden’s (1995) model of a critical learning system. It is that as the facilitator of experiential learning, I benefit from having a specific problematic situation to deal with explicitly in the group setting using experiential learning processes. As well, items 4 and 5 led to my proposed second addition to Bawden's (1995) model. It is that we should experientially learn in the group situation about our relationships.
My second argument (Argument II) relates to my facilitation of pastoralists’ experiential learning. I argue that my improved facilitation practice in agricultural extension has derived from personal and collaborative reflection. This argument has contemporary meaning because currently agricultural extension officers such as myself are being encouraged by reviewers of agricultural extension activities and other social research and extension professionals, to improve our extension practice.
The suggestion is for us to do this through our facilitation of farmers’ learning by applying adult learning principles and participative practices and reflecting to learn about how we each do this. However, the implementation of the suggestion becomes complex in relation to facilitating experiential learning, as it seems that such items as pastoralists’ previous experience helps explain why they do or don’t take action. In the same, way previous experience helps explain whether I do or don’t take action as the facilitator of the experiential learning of the pastoralists.
Most suggestions being made for the improvement of extension officers’ practice refer to the development of skills as adult educators. However, applying adult learning principles in a way that is participative and collaborative relies on congruency of theories of action of these two issues (i.e. participation and collaboration).
Personally, I acquired a more congruent position of facilitation that was participative and collaborative through action researching my practice of facilitating experiential learning with pastoralists and by reflecting on the emergent outcomes for me as the facilitator. Action science provided the method of reflecting to assess my extension behaviour as a facilitator, helping me to understand why increased congruency was necessary for changed extension practice.
These two arguments form the foundation of my thesis. They represent a significant development in my understanding of the practice of facilitation of experiential learning in agricultural extension situations.
Section 1.3 The structure of the thesis
Seven chapters follow this introductory chapter. In the remainder of this chapter I present a brief description of the agricultural extension situation in which the project was conducted. This provides background for the thesis and leads to the presentation, in the last section, of the central notion that led to my undertaking the project.
In Chapter 2 I discuss my methodology and methods. I begin by presenting the ontology that framed my position. This provides a foundation for describing and justifying the methodology chosen with respect to the rigour of the research process and interpretation of data for learning outcomes. I then discuss my reasons for using qualitative research. The chapter concludes with a description of the methods used.
In Chapter 3 I present a summary of the events of the project. This is done in a series of tables that provide a time-sequence of events in the project. The tables also show the interplay between the events and issues of the project and the subject matter of the literature informing my practice at the time. It is this interplay that led to the emergence of the initial learning outcomes that provide the foundation of Arguments I and II.
Chapter 4 contains reflective observations on literature that relates to Argument I. In it I refer to the link between learning how to learn and self-directedness of learning, levels of learning, achieving higher level learning, reflection in learning and action learning.
Chapters 5 and 7 contain my main contributions to knowledge relating to practice as an agricultural extension officer. In each chapter I begin by presenting the learning outcomes made in relation to the argument that is the focus of the chapter (either Argument I or II). Then I present observations from field work that support or contrast with the argument. In so doing I combine my earlier interpretation of the literature with additional literature and my field observations to develop the case for the argument presented in the chapter. The structure of these two chapters illustrates the interplay between literature (theory) and field work (practice). It is this interplay that provides additional rigour in interpretation.
Chapter 5 refers to Argument I and I begin with a summary of learning outcomes related to understanding experiential learning and its role in a critical learning system. I then summarise the dialectical material from my field work that contributes to Argument I. This includes literature that is both supportive and critical of my position. I conclude with modifications to the model of a critical learning system I would now use in agricultural extension practice.
Chapter 6 contains reflective observations on literature relevant to Argument II. In it I refer to the impact of facilitation on learning in crisis situations, the level of awareness of how learning is occurring, creating transparency in learning situations and congruency of action theories of facilitation.
The structure of Chapter 7 is similar to that of Chapter 5. It begins with a summary of learning outcomes relating to my role as an agricultural extension officer facilitating experiential learning with pastoralist farmers. I then summarise the dialectical material from field work that contributed to Argument II. This includes literature that supports, or is critical of Argument II. I conclude by using a process of interpretation of Action Science Model I and II values (Dick and Dalmau 1992) to demonstrate the reflective practice I am suggesting for my future agricultural extension practice.
In Chapter 8 I cautiously examine the possibility of expanding my arguments. I consider expansion from my own practice of agricultural extension to the broader field of agricultural extension in rangeland pastoral situations and possibly to other extension contexts.
Section 1.4 The agricultural extension situation of central west Queensland
In 1990 Wythes, Woods and Gleeson reviewed the extension policy of the Department of Primary Industry (DPI) in Queensland. They state inter alia that extension was "....... directed principally to offering advice to individual producers, to assist them to develop their properties and to adopt technology flowing from research...". They also said that the "... the advice was principally technology-based"(p2).
In delivering their services in these two contexts, extension officers acted in two capacities. In the first they acted as technical advisers responding to particular farm-based development issues, especially those recognised by farmers themselves. In the second they acted to promulgate research-based technologies, extending the results of scientific inquiry into farmers’ situations. In these two roles extension officers were often encouraged to act as sales or marketing personnel and in support of this, the DPI conducted workshops for staff to encourage them to adopt a marketing approach (Whyte 1988). In such situations, extension officers were acting in expert/technologist roles. Suggested changes, such as the move to marketing, have come about as DPI staff have searched for ways to overcome ‘barriers’ to the adoption of new technological practices.
The gains from extension framed in the above way have been in production and productivity (Wythes et al 1990), and this is a factor recognised by Bawden (1989) in his description of phases of Australian agriculture. The "Wythes" policy review suggested a change in extension approach to include the skilling of farmers in problem identification and resolution, through education and training. The policy review did not deny that some extension practitioners were already practising this type of extension, but observed that it was not official policy. In suggesting the change they refer to the emerging attention to the issue of sustainable farming where they recognise that individual farmers are best able to respond. As an example of this, they cited the Landcare movement where groups of farmers were being encouraged to act together to improve the quality of the environment in which they were doing their farming.
In response to the policy review, the DPI produced a strategy for future extension action in agriculture. The DPI Extension Strategy Statement (ESS) (Anon 1992) refers to extension with strategic direction and community involvement to provide farmers with the tools for self-management and self-reliance. "QDPI extension is about using communication and adult education to help agricultural industries and others to identify where changes need to be made and to help them make those changes. Its emphasis is on developing skills and knowledge in people" (Anon 1992 p2).
The DPI’s call to provide this type of extension demonstrates a significant change in focus from that of technology transfer alone. The shift towards farmer self-management and self-reliance through communication and education, is consistent with a recognition by the original reviewers and by other authors (e.g. Vanclay and Lawrence 1995) that previous extension approaches needed changing to accommodate the more complex issues associated with more sustainable practices.
The emphasis of the ESS on "developing skills and knowledge in people" (Anon 1992) added a dimension of social science to the extension arena which had largely been ignored previously in Australia. The inclusion of the perspectives and knowledge of farmers in extension, in research and in planning, and in linking research and extension with the people in the system, finds support from other writers. These include Shulman (1993), Campbell and Junor (1992), Russell and Ison (1991) and Roling and Engel (1991). The proposed developments in DPI extension would focus on helping producers further develop the capability of making informed choices. The aim of farmer founded choice is akin to the recognition by Carr and Kemmis (1986) that people face ‘subjective’ constraints that could change if they viewed the world differently.
A comparison of three DPI initiated extension conferences after 1990 show the progress of the change in extension in Queensland. A basic description of the focus of each conference and the target audience is in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 The focus and target audience of three DPI extension conferences after 1990
QDPI Extension Conference (May 1990)
Extension Conference - Gearing up for the Future (Feb 1993)
Australia Pacific Extension Conference - Securing the Future (Oct 1993)
Conducted by Queensland DPI for DPI staff.
Conducted by Queensland DPI for DPI staff with a few other invited speakers.
Hosted by DPI and including a range of invited and submitted material from other countries and service providers other than agricultural extension.
Focus: Communication - sharing information and ideas among extension officers on extension methodology, systems and theory (Jorgensen 1990).
Focus: Equip, encourage and enthuse extension officers to manage the provision of an effective client service in DPI’s changing role and to provide guidance through the 1990s (Fell 1993).
Focus: Learning from each other as a shift takes place from the push of technology to that of facilitating people to drive their own development (Coutts 1993).
These conference overviews highlight the move of agricultural extension from technology transfer to the facilitation of activities, with farmers choosing their own development path. These strategies provide for the progressive development of farmer self-reliance and informed decision-making. The strategies planned by DPI for extension in Queensland, embrace central west Queensland, the site of my project activities. In this way, my project of facilitating experiential learning with pastoralists aligned with the direction provided by the Extension Strategy Statement.
Section 1.5 The background to my project
In this section I briefly outline what my project notion is and my reasoning in arriving at that notion. I have not referred to literature in presenting my reasoning. Instead I have presented my reasoning in the knowledge that the remainder of the thesis demonstrates the notion in action with links to the literature and identifies needed changes to it.
The background of my project was my notion that the skills of experiential learning could markedly improve the capabilities of pastoralists becoming their own improvers of situations. They would thus increase their level of self-reliance as informed decision makers. My notion was also that, by facilitating experiential learning with pastoralists, I would be able to experientially learn how to improve my practice of facilitating such learning with pastoralists.
Experiential learning is particularly relevant here as many situations faced by pastoralist farmers in central west Queensland are problematic in that they have no known answers and any improvement must provide for property specific management features. One perspective suggests that farmer participation in planned group extension activities such as Landcare will provide skills in problem resolution. However, the assumption here is that clients will have the freedom in time, finance availability, management activities, as well as family and social commitments, to become involved in the issues for which they don’t currently have solutions.
What may happen is that limited resources (time, labour, income etc) together with commitments (family, social, living etc) may make it less easy for pastoralists to commit themselves to any but the most vital issues. Such issues are often crisis generated and relate to maintaining income or to opposing proposed restrictions to current farming practice. Other issues are emotionally driven.
Furthermore, formal situations may not address improvement in problematic situations that are farm or farmer specific. This may mean that only pastoralists who are comparatively resource-rich, could participate in current and future approaches aimed at better resource management. This would exacerbate social distinctions, as it would be only those involved who acquire skills in alternative thinking approaches developed in such formal situations.
A more systemic approach would be to focus group extension activities explicitly on the process of learning how to learn, as a complement to other extension approaches. In gaining these skills, pastoralists learn how they learn and think so that they can deal with issues as they arise. Such a way of learning from experience produces an increasingly critical approach to thinking and provides alternatives to existing ways of thinking about problematic situations.
Experiential learning would have particular relevance here as it involves learning through real problematic situations and is a process appropriate to both individuals and groups. As such it seemed suitable for use by pastoralists who often have to solve management problems without help from "experts", while they (the pastoralists) do have access to other pastoralists experiencing similar situations. Moreover, experiential learning involves the individuals in the situation giving due attention to an appropriate process to identify assumptions in the situation and develop different perspectives for action. My notion therefore was that from experiential learning will come a foundation for pastoralists’ skills in critical thinking. Rather than defining ‘what’ pastoralists should think about an issue in any given circumstance, extension delivering experiential learning skills would expand ‘how’ they learn their way through it.
It was my notion in starting this work that through explicit attention to the process of how they learn, pastoralists would acquire skills to critically question their own ideas and actions. They would also question the approaches suggested to them by others. As well, because of the learning format used and its relationship to experience, they could act to alter situations for themselves and contribute to industry decision-making.
Finally, I believed that in the act of facilitating the development of learning processes by pastoralists, I would improve my own experiential capabilities. This, in turn, would help me be able to continually improve my abilities as a facilitator of the experiential learning of others - a self-augmenting system. Pastoralists’ problematic situations are complex and situation-specific and require flexibility as issues emerge. So too does my problematic situation of professional practice in extension.
Section 1.6 Summary
In this chapter I presented the two arguments central to my thesis. As well, I provided a structure of the thesis as a whole and a background to its focus. In Chapter 2 I present and justify my methodology and present my methods.
Converted to hypertext by Bob Dick; last modified 20000110
The URL of
this document is
http://www.uq.net.au/action_research/art/t-groberts01.html
